3 
the British Association for the Advancement of Science at 
Dundee, and in the Royal Institution of Great Britain. Its title 
is : On the Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition 
of Man/' which well describes the drift both of his Paper and 
of mine. We both agree, and every thoughtful person must 
feel, that it is not enough to say, with M. Guizot, that “ civi- 
lization is a fact : " we require to know its probable origin, i. e. 3 
we want to know what kind of a being the primitive man 
really was. On that point, however, the distinguished baronet 
and myself are diametrically opposed. He is a professed Dar- 
winian, and does not believe in the special creation of man, but 
thinks he was developed by some imaginary process, which the 
Darwinians, nevertheless, call “ natural," from a monkey, first 
into some nondescript and undiscovered animal between an 
ape and a man, and from that into a savage, something like 
those we know do now exist, of the very lowest grade. On 
the contrary I believe that “ God created man in His own 
image, “ upright," “ very good " ; and that savages are de- 
generate and degraded but remote descendants of superior 
ancestors. 
4. According to Sir John Lubbock, therefore, the origin of 
civilization is savagery. He thinks that man, little better 
than a brute originally, has raised himself from that low and 
savage condition to a state of civilization and superiority; and 
that it is the tendency of mankind thus to rise. I hold diame- 
trically the reverse of all this: I believe that man was originally 
perfect, “ made a little lower than the angels," and has fallen 
from that state of moral elevation ; that civilization owes its 
existence to this original superiority of man, to the remains 
of it in the oldest civilized races, and to its revival and re- 
coveiy in those races which had degenerated; and that unfor- 
tunately it is rather the tendency of mankind to degenerate and 
to fall n’om better to worse, than to rise and elevate themselves 
from a savage or barbarous condition. 
o. Now I contend, that apart altogether from what is 
1 evealed m Holy Scripture as to man's creation and his fall, 
the view I maintain is the only one consistent with all our 
experience, with all our positive knowledge of mankind, with 
a the history of the past that can be relied on, and with all 
the unquestionable facts of nature with which we are ac- 
quainted. I contend, further, that the view entertained by Sir 
John Lubbock is in the teeth of all such facts and history and 
knowledge and experience: that the arguments with which 
he supports his view are weak and illogical; and that he has 
shrunk besides from looking all the facts in the face, and from 
meeting arguments which he was aware had been advanced 
b 2 
